Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Where is the Cantor-style diagonalization argument that you spoke of?
> You skipped over it, read again. The key point is that you're
> referencing the thing you think will be invalidated to create your
> scheme.
I've carefully read your message at least 4 times, but I've been unable
to find anything resembling Cantor's diagonalization argument in there.
Does anyone else see it? Perhaps my powers of recognition are too weak.
Regards,
Mark
--
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
